Will The Bedroom Tax Affect Me?

jeanmd

BigAunty wrote: »

They should have rents set at the income of the tenants so we don't end up with tenants earning £50k and paying £100 a week for their properties.

They do this in New Mexico, USA. I'm not sure about other states, but I would guess it's the same. The properties are very nice, gated communities with play ares etc. Rent is a percentage of your income - so if you are on a low income, you pay less, higher income you pay more.[STRIKE] There doesn't seem to be an upper limit, which means that when people's wages rise, they tend to buy or move to better private rents.[/STRIKE] I was quite impressed with this idea and it means social housing is for people who need it.
Edit: To live in social housing a families income cannot exceed 50% of the median income for the area.

BigAunty

jeanmd wrote: »

They do this in New Mexico, USA. I'm not sure about other states, but I would guess it's the same. ...

I believe social housing operates like this in France and a certain level of income will trigger the end of the tenancy. However, this could also act as a brake on the incentive for tenants to better themselves.

In other countries, the tenancies in social housing are temporary and some tenants are subject to interviews and conditions.

I readin an article today (can't remember if I posted it on this thread or another) that even allowing for the fact that social housing has tenants with higher vulnerabilities, lone parents, disabilities and so on, it still has significant levels of worklessness compared to other tenures. That while the cheap rents should act as a stepping stone into employment unlike the private sector where much more of their disposable income gets spent on the rent, the employment rates of social housing tenants show this is no incentive.

PoorCharleyBear

notanewuser wrote: »

Wow. Lucky her. Rent paid, cash in her pocket each week and managed to afford an £800 plane ticket.

...while on JSA!
Lucky her.

Morlock

Blue22 wrote: »

You have stated in several threads recently that 88% of owner-occupied homes are underoccupied. If you read the source that you quoted above that is not what it says. It says that 88% of the 7.9million underoccupied homes are owner occupied, so less than 7 million OO homes are underoccupied. As there are about 17.5 million OO homes in the country this equates to less than 40% of owner occupied homes being underoccupied.

The reference in other posts to the 88% under-occupancy rate in the owner-occupied sector refers to a different source for another purpose, it just happens to be the same percentage. This is the original post of that source:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59219879&postcount=76

Blue22

Morlock wrote: »

The reference in other posts to the 88% under-occupancy rate in the owner-occupied sector refers to a different source for another purpose, it just happens to be the same percentage. This is the original post of that source:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59219879&postcount=76

I've been through the English Housing Survey that you referenced in the other post but cannot see the graph that you copied nor any reference to 88%. The figures I found in that survey (from Table 10 on pg 26) for under-occupancy were

49% of owner occupiers and 10.2% of social renters

Could you please reference the site you copied the pie graph from because it appears to be completely innacurate

seven-day-weekend

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

A lot of house owners do downsize when their chidren leave home or when they retire and are on a fixed income. Smaller house means smaller bills.

Exactly. I know a couple who had five children and a four-bedroom house (bought and paid for), when the children had flown they bought a two-bedroom bungalow.

If you have paid for something yourself (either rent or mortgage), you can have as many rooms as you like. The size of the house is reflected in the buying price/rent.

Oh...and PLEASE will people stop calling it a Bedroom Tax. It is not a tax, it is a reduction in Housing Benefit.

paddedjohn

My first house was a 3 bed terrace which my wife and I worked hard to buy, after my divorce I went to live in a rented 1 bed flat but found it too small so through more hard work I managed to buy myself a house, a 6 bed house, I didn't need 6 bedrooms but I wanted them as the house was an old Victorian pile which I loved, I don't consider myself greedy for having those spare bedrooms since all it took me to get them was hard work. I now live with my 2nd wife in a 4 bed house that we have again worked hard for and it's mortgage free, ours all ours, how would these idiots plans like Morloks work then eh? Would the council come along and buy my house off me and thousands like me? We already pay more than council tax than smaller property's. The bedroom tax (which is not a tax at all but a reduction in benefits so if you dont like it then either cut back or move or shock horror get a job to pay towards your rent) is a great idea although it could possibly have started at 2 bed houses rather than 1bedroom ones, this would alleviate the problem that there are not enough 1 bed property's. another way to balance things out would be to bring back the poll tax then the more adults living in the property the more they pay for council services, much fairer system.

princessdon

paddedjohn wrote: »

My first house was a 3 bed terrace which my wife and I worked hard to buy, after my divorce I went to live in a rented 1 bed flat but found it too small so through more hard work I managed to buy myself a house, a 6 bed house, I didn't need 6 bedrooms but I wanted them as the house was an old Victorian pile which I loved, I don't consider myself greedy for having those spare bedrooms since all it took me to get them was hard work. I now live with my 2nd wife in a 4 bed house that we have again worked hard for and it's mortgage free, ours all ours, how would these idiots plans like Morloks work then eh? Would the council come along and buy my house off me and thousands like me? We already pay more than council tax than smaller property's. The bedroom tax (which is not a tax at all but a reduction in benefits so if you dont like it then either cut back or move or shock horror get a job to pay towards your rent) is a great idea although it could possibly have started at 2 bed houses rather than 1bedroom ones, this would alleviate the problem that there are not enough 1 bed property's. another way to balance things out would be to bring back the poll tax then the more adults living in the property the more they pay for council services, much fairer system.

Morlock doesn't want you to move, they think you should pay, pretty sure they'd double or tripple the amount tenants are paying.

He doesn't get the fact it is a reduction in benefits, yet when people lost CB he didn't seem to want that applied to others. Double standards, but he wants more money off OO not rooms.

ILW

There is no such thing as a bedroom tax.

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

It is not irrelevant when there is a housing shortage and owner-occupiers are hogging all of the available property because they claim to have 'paid their way'.

A huge percentage of 'owner-occupiers' are not owners at all, but pay a mortgage to the bank who still own the deeds to the property. Who bailed out the banks to stop 'their' property being repossessed to settle the banks debt? And to keep mortgage interest low?

Because you are an 'owner-occupier', it doesn't mean that you have not received taxpayers' money to enable that 'ownership'. Perhaps not as directly as housing benefit, but a taxpayer funded lifestyle nonetheless.

That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in my life.